RAJAGOPALA NAIDU Vs. RAMASUBRAMANIA AIYAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiffs in this representative suit claim to have an exclusive right to manage certain Devastanams mentioned in the plaint and to appoint and remove a Dharma-kartha for those temples whenever occasion arises. They pray for a declaration accordingly and ask for delivery of possession by defendants 1 and 2 of all the properties of the suit temples and for payment of certain amounts that may be found due on examination of accounts of the income and expenditure.

(2.) The question in this Civil Revision Petition is bow such a suit should be valued. The Subordinate Judge has valued it according to the estimate made by a Commissioner of the value of the temples and all the properties attached to them which amounts to more than Rs. 2,00,000. The 1 plaintiff as petitioner contends that he is not liable to pay Court-fees upon the valuation of the temple properties according to their market value. He maintains that he can value the relief under Section 7, Clause 4(c) of the Court-fees Act as he pleases, as the only right in issue in the suit is the right pertaining to trustees of managing the suit properties. In C.R.P. No. 862 of 1917, a similar question came before a Bench consisting of Mr. Justice Sadasiva Aiyar and myself, the question then being whether a plaintiff who sued for joint possession along with other trustees was bound to pay Court-fees ad valorem as in a suit for possession falling under Section 7, Clause 5, upon the market value of the temple and its properties. We made a reference to a Full Bench upon the point. When the reference came before the Full Bench the Civil Revision Petition was withdrawn. The question which was a very important one, upon which Sadasiva Aiyar, J., and I differed, thus remained undecided. Most of the authorities were collected in the reference made by my learned brother and myself, and after full consideration I expressed an opinion that the plaintiff's valuation was conclusive and should be accepted under Section 7, Clause 4(c) and (d) and Art. 17, Clause (vi) of Schedule 2 of the Court-fees Act. I pointed out in that case that the plaintiff was only asking for such possession as he was entitled to on the footing of a trustee without having any personal interest in the trust property and for such possession as the holder of the office was capable of, the ownership of the temple properties being vested in the idol. If a plaintiff sets up any proprietary right over temple properties I was willing to concede that he must pay Court-fees valuing his relief of possession upon the value of the temple properties. I then held that the cases in Sonachala V/s. Manika [1885] 8 Mad. 516 and Appeal No. 10 of 1911 were distinguishable and I quoted Mohendra V/s. Denabandhu [1914] Cri.L.J. 15, and certain other authorities for the proposition that if a plaintiff claims no higher right than that of administering endowed properties he should not be made to pay Court-fees on the same footing as a plaintiff who sues for possession claiming rights as proprietor. The question is an important one, and I am not satisfied that Appeal No. 10 of 1911 and Section A. No. 1410 of 1917 in which it was held that the temple and its properties must be valued were1 correctly decided. It is advisable also that in a matter where no party is more concerned than Government who are interested in the payment pf the full Court-fees, the Advocate-General should have notice and should be heard in the matter.

(3.) I therefore refer to a Full Bench the question what are the Court-fees legally payable on the plaint in this suit O.S. No. 28 of 1920 in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Mayavaram? Venkatasubba Rao. J.